Sivakumar v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Pattukottai

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 22.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Sivakumar ..Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Pattukottai Police Station, Thanjavur District. (Crime No.175 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner:Mr.A.Arun Prasad Advocate. For Respondent :Mr.M.Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Intervener :Mr.P.Pratheesh PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.175 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

The petitioner/Sole Accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 316(2), 318(4) and 351(2) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.175 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are known to each other. The petitioner had stated the defacto complainant that he is sending manpower to abroad. On believing the words of the petitioner, on 28.07.2017, the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the defacto complainant for arrangemen of Manpower job at Abroad for his son. Thereafter, he neither provided job in abroad nor returned the amount. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had borrowed money from the defacto complainant and thereafter, he returned the same in cash. He would further submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he is no way connected in the above said incident and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the alleged occurrence took place on

28.07.2017, however the date of FIR is on

12.04.2026 and hence, there is a delay in filing FIR. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned counsel for the intervenor represented the defacto complainant and would submit that the defacto complainant is going to file intervene petition. He would further submit that the petitioner cheated the defacto complainant by receiving a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to arrange a job for the defacto complainant's son in abroad. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶5The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police would submit that the petitioner received a sum of Rs.5 lakhs from the defacto complainant to arrange a job for the defacto complainant's son in abroad and hence, the present has been filed against him. He would further submit that the investigation is pending and the offences are grave in nature. He fairly submits that the petitioner has no previous cases. However, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶6Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

7.Considering the rival submissions on either side and nature of offence and considering the fact that there was a dispute regarding the money transaction and the alleged occurrence took place on 28.07.2017, however the date of FIR is on

12.04.2026 and hence, there is a delay in filing FIR and no previous case is pending against the petitioner and hence, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial

Magistrate,

Pattukkottai, Thanjavur, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the Sub Inspector of Police, Pattukottai Police Station, Thanjavur District, once in a week ie., on Every Saturday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation. [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature. [d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [e] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions,

the

learned

Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

(P D B J)

22.04.2026 vsg To

1.learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai, Thanjavur,

2.The Inspector of Police, Pattukottai Police Station, Thanjavur District.

3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Pattukottai Police Station, Thanjavur District.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. CRLeOP(MD).eNo.e8023eofe2026 eeP.eDHANABAL,eJ., eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevsg eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeORDER eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeIN eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeCRLeOP(MD)eNo.e8023eofe2026 eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeDateee:e22.04.2026